That seems like an argument to go after the actual alleged illegally hosted materials through the proper DMCA takedown request.

▲

charcircuit 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Both should be done. Often the actual illegally hosted materials are on servers not friendly with takedown requests or will get immediately reloaded by the pirates. By going after the links it can cut off the ability for people to find the illegally hosted materials.

▲

ddtaylor 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Seems like a strange way to attempt to police the internet by proxy. The Internet should ignore or route around people attempting to police how nodes connect to each other.

▲

charcircuit 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree that the larger Internet should be capable of routing lawful traffic through jurisdictions where such traffic is lawful to another jurisdiction where the traffic is lawful. But within a country for example local laws should be applied to the traffic.

	▲	AnthonyMouse 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There are two options here: 1) You can have an encrypted connection between two jurisdictions that have different laws, but then anyone can route around censorship because you don't know if they're discussing geopolitics or distributing DeCSS. 2) You can't have an encrypted connection between two jurisdictions that have different laws, which is >99% of all connections because even different cities have different laws, which is an Orwellian panopticon and the destruction of all privacy. I'm going to have to insist we stick with the first one.

▲

direwolf20 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Is this like how in France, DNS resolvers are legally required to block certain websites? That's right, if you run "unbound" with default options in France you're a felon.

	▲	charcircuit 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah. The government can dictate what you are and aren't allowed to do. This is not a novel concept.